This study provides valuable insight by demonstrating, through various experiments in the Mediterranean Sea, that the choice of vertical mixing scheme is an important factor in reproducing oceanic physical variables. In this regard, the manuscript has sufficient merit and relevance for readers.

However, several aspects require more thorough discussion. If these points are adequately addressed, the study could serve as a useful reference for ocean numerical modeling.

[Major Comments]

1. This study compares differences in the vertical structure of the Mediterranean Sea associated with different vertical mixing schemes and convective adjustment, primarily focusing on basin-averaged scales. However, the current discussion remains somewhat superficial, and a more in-depth analysis is needed.
2. In particular, more detailed explanations are required regarding how the schemes and EVD operate in key regions where major water masses are formed, such as deep water and intermediate water formation areas in each experiment. It would also be valuable to describe the physical processes through which these differences develop over time.
3. Rather than simply describing differences among experimental results, the discussion should further address the physical mechanisms responsible for these differences and elaborate on their scientific implications.
4. In Section 3.1, before discussing the differences between the Control experiment and observations (OBS), it would be necessary to first present the differences between the initial conditions used in this study and the observations. This information would provide an important basis for interpreting how the model results shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are actually influenced by the vertical mixing schemes.
   
   For example, it should be clarified whether the statistical metrics presented in Figs. 4 and 5 primarily reflect characteristics of the initial conditions, or whether they result from physical processes associated with the vertical mixing schemes that amplify or reduce model errors.
5. In addition to Argo data, incorporating ship-based observational datasets (e.g., repeated hydrographic sections or long-term monitoring stations), if available, could provide a more comprehensive observational basis and allow for a more detailed discussion of experiment-specific characteristics across different regions of the Mediterranean.

[Specific Comments]

1. (line 84) Although statistical differences in deep water and intermediate water formation regions are compared across experiments, it is unclear whether a two-year model integration is sufficient to evaluate these differences. In particular, it should be examined whether spin-up effects may still influence the results.
2. (line 94) The phrase “our model domain” in the description of Argo float data sounds somewhat awkward.
3. (Fig. 1) It would be helpful to label major sub-basins of the Mediterranean on the map and include a schematic of major currents and regions where convection frequently occurs. In particular, key regions repeatedly mentioned in the manuscript should be clearly indicated to help readers better understand the regional characteristics.
4. (Section 2.1) The study presents basin-averaged vertical profiles of temperature and salinity using Argo float data. However, presenting seasonal vertical profile characteristics specifically in deep and intermediate water formation regions would more clearly illustrate the effects of different vertical mixing schemes and convective adjustment.
5. (line 130) The longitude and latitude ranges should be clearly specified.
6. (line 156) In the sentence “The latter rely on ~~,” it should be clarified what “the latter” refers to.
7. (Fig. 4) Would it be possible to present basin-averaged mixed layer depth by showing both model results and observations together for comparison?
8. (line 341) Clarification is needed regarding the meaning of negative RMSE values. How can RMSE take negative values?
9. (line 351–353) A more detailed explanation is needed regarding why the result described in “The Richardson-dependent scheme without EVD ~~~” was expected.
10. The location of the Rhodes Gyre region should be indicated in Fig. 1.
11. The Rhodes Gyre region should be defined and its location presented when it is first mentioned in the manuscript.
12. (Figure 11) The manuscript states that the largest errors occur between 200–500 m depth across all experiments. However, the figure appears to show that intermediate-depth errors increase at specific times after model integration begins. A discussion is needed to explain the physical processes responsible for the formation of these errors. For example, it should be considered whether differences in intermediate water formation associated with different schemes lead to the development of these errors during periods of water mass formation.
13. It would also be beneficial to extend the discussion to regions with characteristics similar to the Mediterranean, and to elaborate on how the findings of this study could be considered or applied in a broader regional context.